George Jonas: Israel can’t decide whether to attack Iran — But I can

Israel can’t decide whether to attack Iran — But George Jonas can

It’s widely reported that there are divisions between Israel’s political leadership and its defence and intelligence establishment over the possibility of having Israel knock out Iran’s nuclear program in a unilateral military move, seeking no approval from anyone, just as Israel knocked out Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981.

Considering the havoc a non-nuclear Saddam caused 10 years later, it’s easy to imagine the nightmare a nuclear Saddam would have been. Israel’s attack certainly achieved what it was designed to achieve.

The buzz on the Rialto has long been that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak are promoting the unilateral-attack option, while many cabinet colleagues, top spooks and military brass are content to just have it on the table. Lately, the split has been depicted in sharper terms. “The extent of Netanyahu’s and Barak’s isolation is little understood,” wrote J. J. Goldberg on The Daily Beast website this week, describing the opposition “among Israel’s military and intelligence professionals” as “virtually unanimous.”

I would agree that the opposition is widespread. Israel is divided. Really, someone might say, and how is that different from last year or the year before? True, a division, in itself, would only be business as usual for Israel. What makes it news is that this division seems to be between Israel’s political leadership and some of its intelligence and defence establishment. Such a split wouldn’t be business as usual in any country, not even in a kingdom as secure as Canada, and certainly not in one that resembles a beleaguered postage stamp like the Jewish state.

Related

No two countries on Earth present a greater contrast in this regard than Canada and Israel. Guarded by Mother Nature on three sides, and settled history along the fourth, Canada’s armed forces are a mere grace note to the country’s intrinsic invulnerability. Israel wouldn’t last a day in the natural and historical environment of the Middle East without its sons and daughters protecting their country’s flag from the foe with their bodies. Harmony between defence establishment and civilian leaders, important to any country, is essential to Israel.

Yet, having persisted for some time as a rumour, it is the story of a split that has matured into news last summer, and not just a split but one sharp enough for former Mossad director Meir Dagan to describe Netanyahu and Barak’s favorite policy option as “the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.”

This is strong language, even for a man who feels duty-bound not to mince words, speaking in a closed hearing, with an expectation of confidentiality, as Dagan was when he made his remark in May 2011. Some observers discounted it in the months that followed, pointing out that it came from a man whose contract hadn’t been renewed by Netanyahu, but this interpretation became unavailable a few months later when Dagan’s successor, Tamir Pardo, the current head of Mossad who was appointed in Dagan’s place by Netanyahu, expressed the view that Iran wasn’t “necessarily” an existential threat to Israel, making the split between the factions visible again.

Who will win the dispute? In democracies, people who are voted into office outrank people who are appointed to it. There are exceptions, but the elected usually command, and the appointed usually obey. The elected get to devise policies and the appointed get to carry them out (or resign). As long as Israel is a democracy, if the prime and defence ministers want one policy and the defence and intelligence communities want another, the smart money goes, as it has to, on whatever the prime and defence ministers want.

Even if it’s the stupidest idea? Yes. Odds may accrue to events according to their merits, but whether they do or not, events will occur according to their odds.

Netanyahu and Barak’s policy may be vulnerable to something entirely different. As Leo Tolstoy pointed out in War and Peace, if an order isn’t capable of being carried out, it won’t be, even if the Emperor Napoleon issues it himself. The most powerful ruler can’t command an impossibility. Also, of course, if Israel ceases to be a democracy, all bets are off — but there’s no sign of that.

I’m leaving a hundred words for my own opinion. The Roman senator Cato made himself a bit of a bore by incessantly repeating, in Latin, of course, that “Carthage must be destroyed.” I won’t do that. I will say Iran must be de-nuked. I’m assuming that the split in Israel is real and not some elaborate Ruse de Guerre (unlikely, but people do play games.) I further assume that those who push for a preemptive strike have good reasons to think it’s feasible and would set back Iran’s nuclear program by a year or more, or else they’re fools, while those who oppose it have good reasons to think it isn’t feasible and it wouldn’t, or else they’re worse fools.

Futile or unnecessary military gestures may be stupid, but letting opportunities to disarm lunatics slip by is criminal. And while Iran may not be an existential threat to Israel, a nuclear theocracy is an existential threat to the world.